Your comment is in the queue.

Hello.   I just want to make a brief post to the individual who has been sending comments in, anonymously, that they wish to have me include in the blog post from last week.

Your comments are there, they just aren’t approved.   The reason they aren’t approved yet is that some of what you are saying involves the recent flamewar of Chris Johnson versus his constant critics Eido Inoue (Adrian Havill) and Ken Yasumoto-Nicolson.   Although you are making reference to a prior back-and-forth between Mr. Johnson and novelist Jake Adelstein (alternatively, journalist Jake Adelstein), you are making reference to some blacklist out there, of Tokyo based journalists.  

My approach to these comments is that I want to know more about this blacklist.   Particularly, your comments suggest that you know who is on the Tokyo reporter blacklist, and who controls it.

To me, I don’t want to just approve comments about blacklists and who in Tokyo can or cannot be crossed, without more information.   I am sure that you appreciate my position on both the flamewar/blamewar and wanting to have the missing pieces filled in.

A bit also about the Asia Times piece that appeared around March 15, online.  It has been remarked in an other forum by someone who stalks Debito Arudou’s Facebook site, that I had mentioned that there were parts attributed to me, that in fact (if you read my website daily), would clearly have been my talking about something that Mr. Johnson had already reported about.   And apparently, in this Asia Times piece, this is presented as if I had originally said the thing, and then, now, Christopher Johnson is reporting what I said.   In fact, which should be clear, it is Christopher Johnson having reported something, that I commented about, where, next, it appears in Asia Times as if I am the original sayer.   

It’s not clear why the piece was presented that way (whether it was reporter Johnson or the editor at Asia Times cutting the submission down to fit a word limit).

I still do think that the gist of Mr. Johnson’s reporting, which is the result of his sitting on these featured websites and figuring out the patterns to the various sock puppetry that goes on there, is fairly convincing.   It is very hard to get direct evidence on internet torts, particularly where the people are using anonymizing techniques like Tor.   You are only going to get circumstantial evidence.

If I have more to include about Asia Times, I will do that at some later point.   Again, it’s something where it takes time to review, and I have a budget on that.

Please respect my rules for how I run my own website, and respect the fact that I do not want to participate in flamewars.   If you are so insistent on real-time communication, I’m afraid I can’t accommodate you.




13 Replies to “Your comment is in the queue.”

  1. It baffles me that you expect me to share more of what I know when you’re still refusing to let it appear in the comments.

    You can block it or have a dialogue. Can’t have it both ways.

    1. No, that’s a false choice. You can make your submission much more clear, and excise the parts where it just looks like you are trying to badmouth some individual who is not a participant in this conversation, by insinuating something for which no one else around the internet is saying exists. So I ask you again: what is the journalist blacklist and who runs it?

  2. Now I think about it, it’s obvious why you won’t publish.

    As my blocked comment makes it clear, There is no “blacklist” that I know of. It’s just common sense that if you attack people in a small world, it can damage your own professional reputation.

    Of course, I already said that in my blocked reply to griz. I think you’re deliberately withholding it because this way, you can write a new post that implies to your readers that you have word of a conspiracy. When in fact you have the clarification in your inbox, and you’re withholding it to keep up your distortion

    And your claims it’s to stop flame wars/libel is BS- the truth de-escalates the matter. And if you didn’t want this to continue, you wouldn’t have written a new post about it.

  3. And you’re just going to let this post and your last comment stand without publishing the real info, aren’t you? The only one on the internet claiming there’s word of a literal blacklist is YOU.

    You have some nerve accusing others of spreading rumors and misinformation online, buddy.

    1. I’m with Hoofin on this. You said that there was a blacklist, and CJ was on it, then accused CJ of being paranoid about such a conspiracy. Now you’re saying that you never said there was a blacklist at all?
      But you did. I called you out on it.

      1. Jim, there is a comment in queue which is not so much an attempt to elaborate, as to back away from the original statement. The reason that I haven’t let it through is that it’s caked with a bunch of other claims about CJ that, at best, border on character assassination. (Notice I say, “at best”.) I would have to excise the one parts and then post the other, which would set off even more protestations. So I’m just putting the project off.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s